No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

The two "Mdina"s I've just put in look to me as if there was no vibrating element at all - just a straightforward scratch with a diamond tip...The first one has suffered from age-related wear to the mark. It's on the bottom of an inside-out, which may help to put the proper size into perspective. The second image is of the "Mdina" in a polished out pontil mark on the bottom of an ink pot.

Logged

Cheers, Sue (M)"The really smart people know enough to know that there's too much that they don't know for them to be arrogant about the little they do know." Prof. Ron Davis OMF

Trevor, apologies for your thread dissolving. Your bottle is most certainly not in the bread and butter category, and while a "standard" production piece, the bigger bits odf Seascape (such as your bottle) were limited editions. Seascape is a particularly complicated and expensive thing to produce, I suspect they might have been less stringent about chucking a bit that went wonky.

Logged

Cheers, Sue (M)"The really smart people know enough to know that there's too much that they don't know for them to be arrogant about the little they do know." Prof. Ron Davis OMF

Thanks, Sue. You are likely right about the signature on my Seascape bottle.

My comment (in the other thread) about the discussion in this thread having "dissolved" seems on reflection to sound petulant, which was not the case at all. Simply, I didn't want to raise hopes unduly that this thread would provide answers for that other thread. I'm keen on studying signatures on glass, and grateful for the insights from the discussion.

No worries - I did not think you were being petulant at all. It was a shame we didn't really finish there - I had hoped somebody else might chime in, it sort of fizzled out.

But in answer to your original question. Yes, you do indeed have something just a little bit special. It would be worth getting the stuck stopper seeen to. You could always ask the new IoW studio to make a new one for it, which would be the best way of fixing it - at least keeping it within the family as it were.It depends it you want to sell it or keep it and how you want to go with it.

Signatures are trouble. They're either impossible to read or potential fakes, they add absolutely nothing to the beauty of the glass but often add arms and legs to the price. Pics of my bent cylinder. It's just a small thing, not one worthy of a pawmark, unlike your bottle. (It was still very expensive, even in the secondary market, but that was before the recession hit.)

Signatures are trouble. They're either impossible to read or potential fakes, they add absolutely nothing to the beauty of the glass but often add arms and legs to the price.

At the risk of taking the thread on another detour, here's a tale for the amusement of Sue (and anyone else who reads it)…

A glass artist, whose signature I know well from older work I've collected in the secondary market, operates a gallery in which she sells her own works and those of other local artists. I indicated interest in a small piece by one of these others, and commented it's a pity it is not signed and dated, because his other works on show were marked that way. I was told that it could be arranged, if it was collected a few days later. I agreed, but was surprised when I saw it was engraved with his name in her handwriting.

My first thought was 'fraud', but I reconsidered. The attribution is correct and there was no attempt to imitate the form of his signature. It was never said that he would sign it, just that it would be signed. The piece in question is small and inconsequential - tourist ware really. As such, it might be considered generous to provide me with an enduring record of the maker and year. In addition, I have a conversation piece for those in the know.

I see all manner of (mostly hypothetical) questions here about values - both the ethical and pecuniary kinds - and of the definition of when something is "signed". But it would be a mistake to rekindle those controversies here.

Perhaps the whole tale says more about me than anything else. I'm not sure I quite agree with Sue on the role of signatures. Sometimes I suspect my collecting habits are less glass-works-of-art and more autographs-in-glass.

Trevor

[Mod: Quote from Sue's previous post added to the start of this post to make the context clear. This was done after I had made several "Mmmm" noises as a reaction to a possible need to shift this post into the Cafe! If there are further general comments about "prices and stuff" we may need to create a Cafe thread instead.]